Labels Not Displayed On Test Pressings > ¿What should be the label?

Recently https://discogs.programascracks.com/release/7419002-Blizzard-Of-Ozz/history#latest

He changed labels Legacy aren't displayed on the release but catalog number from these companies is shown on label (see picture) & matrix.
Catalog number was also changed by this to "none", obviously did not even bother to look at the picture before make changes, even afterwards having made known to him his mistake...

¿What do you think about "Labels Not Displayed On Test Pressings"? ¿What should be the label? Let's discuss.

https://discogs.programascracks.com/release/7419002-Blizzard-Of-Ozz/history#latest

Like I indicated on the release history page, there's no Epic or Legacy branding on the release. There are no label names present. The only branding is the RTI logo which fits in with RSG §4.6.2: "Label - Brand or imprint used by the record company to identify their releases.".

There's been discussions about this before, https://discogs.programascracks.com/forum/thread/412263#3815191

I'm surprised that a like jweijde would just go ahead and make edits instead of starting a thread.

jweijde
used by the record company

Which https://discogs.programascracks.com/label/144285-Mayking-Records-Ltd/history#latest

sebfact
Please add Mayking Records Ltd only as "Manufactured By" or "Made By" on vinyl test pressings

I didn't know about any previous discussion about this and it was just a single release I've edited. So I don't see why I should have started a topic to discuss this. The RTI logo is on the release and it's clear RTI had an important role in putting this record out. You could argue it's their release, it's their test pressing of a record that was later released by Sony Music Entertainment.
It's comparable to Abbey Road Studios or Coca Cola, whose logos are also considered labels if they are present on a release.

jweijde
The RTI logo is on the release and it's clear RTI had an important role in putting this record out.

Yes, it has an important role: that's the pressing plant. This is displayed on LCCN as "Pressed By". Please, check here: Record Technology Incorporated, and you'll see it's not a label but a pressing plant. I've lost count of the times I've repeated it on this issue...

jweijde
I didn't know about any previous discussion about this and it was just a single release I've edited. So I don't see why I should have started a topic to discuss this.

¿Really? Well... it's better than make changes with no sense...

RgrRecords
¿Really? Well... it's better than make changes with no sense...

how about staying polite just like everyone else in this thread.
jweijde did the obvious thing. there is a brand/logo --> use it as label. Maybe sometimes the obvious is not the correct thing to do but it's not so clear cut.

RgrRecords
it's not a label but a pressing plant.

it doesn't matter if it's a "record label" in the traditional sense or not. on discogs label is branding. not record label.

jweijde
It's comparable to Abbey Road Studios or Coca Cola...

Coca-Cola is not a real label but used to group any promotional releases that were done by the brand Coca-Cola.

jweijde
... whose logos are also considered labels if they are present on a release.

... I don't know if there will be any who shares your opinion...

jweijde
It's comparable to Abbey Road Studios or Coca Cola,

No. it's not. They have no other role and it's been decided that they should be listed as Record Company.

What releases btw use Abbey Road Studios as label, unless it's an acetate?

As I said there's more than one thread about this subject which come to the conclusion that the company which either press or manufacture the disc are given that credit.

The matrix number can be used to determine the catalogue number, which has also been removed.

Catalog numbers can be derived from the matrix numbers in these cases provided there is good evidence for it being correct - for example, the extracted catalog number matches the catalog number format on the label's other releases.
RSG §4.7.10

Pinging Bong

And Coca Cola is just soda. Still those are considered labels when their logos appear on a release.
I understand that RTI is a pressing plant, but that doesn't mean a release with only an RTI logo can't have RTI as label. that labels on Discogs are only brands, logos.

avalon67
No. it's not. They have no other role and it's been decided that they should be listed as Record Company.

Coca Cola is a record company ?

avalon67
What releases btw use Abbey Road Studios as label, unless it's an acetate?

An acetate is comparable to a test pressing. Same type of release.

avalon67
The matrix number can be used to determine the catalogue number, which has also been removed.

Because I don't believe it's the catalog number of this particular record. It's clearly presented as a matrix number only.

RgrRecords
Coca-Cola is not a real label but used to group any promotional releases that were done by the brand Coca-Cola.

That's evidence that what we enter as "Label" on this site doesn't have to be a pure label (e.g. a brand owned by a record company), but is simply the brand present on a release.
Same with RTI.

jweijde
whose logos are also considered labels if they are present on a release.

RgrRecords
... I don't know if there will be any who shares your opinion...

The number of releases where brands like Coca Cola have been entered as label prove otherwise.

Check Record Technology Incorporated web page here: http://www.recordtech.com/

avalon67
Catalog numbers can be derived from the matrix numbers in these cases provided there is good evidence for it being correct - for example, the extracted catalog number matches the catalog number format on the label's other releases.
RSG §4.7.10

1/ Generally a Test Pressing is commercially released after the test,
2/ A Test pressing is generally ordered by a label, and property of that label
3/ A pressing plant has no right to release a record or distribute a test pressing (that's bootlegging), though limited examples exist of releases out of the common channel, eg. a promo for a commercial brand like CocaCola
>> then it makes sense to set label = the commercial label rather than the Pressing Plant even if label logo not on release (most often the case on test pressings), .... and even if we are on discogs ... by chance the guideline reported by avalon does back up us in this case.

I'm having the same trouble here: Cergon* - Play It Funky / Do What You Feel, glad the subject was raised, I'll refer to this thread and get it changed.

mcr1
I'm having the same trouble here: Cergon* - Play It Funky / Do What You Feel, glad the subject was raised, I'll refer to this thread and get it changed.

Yes United Record Pressing, Inc. is not correct) on LCCN.

The label orders manufacture to the pressing plant but the owner is still the label; pressing plant is who manufacture, but not the owner of it.

borderes
1/ Generally a Test Pressing is commercially released after the test,

A small detail, but important in this case: Test pressings are never commercially released.

borderes
2/ A Test pressing is generally ordered by a label, and property of that label

It's not ordered by a label but by a record company. Again, a small but important detail.

borderes
3/ A pressing plant has no right to release a record or distribute a test pressing (that's bootlegging), though limited examples exist of releases out of the common channel, eg. a promo for a commercial brand like CocaCola

This record obviously wasn't meant for public distribution. Test pressings never are. Somehow it ended up in the public domain none the less. What rights a pressing plant has or doesn't have isn't really relevant in this case.

I'm wary of the blanket logo=label as others may be aware but I do think that Record Technology Incorporated is the branded label here and probably should be used. Who paid for this, who owns this etc is really irrelevant.

I can see both sides of the debate. You're either in the 'use logo per label', or it's a test pressing so 'use label it was released on'. Maybe in these examples use both??

On a side note, is it acceptable to use the released label for a test pressing without label indications? eg The B-52s* - Give Me Back My Man ?

On Record Technology Incorporated web page here: http://www.recordtech.com/ the company lists the services offered to their customers, and among this services offered, there's no mention to work as a label, 'cause it's not. Pressing plant is being ordered by the labels because that's a manufacturing and duplication company.
It's not me who's saying it, is said by the company.

jweijde
Test pressings are never commercially released

absolutely right and clear, sorry I might have been imprecise (but I guess that you catch what I meant :-).

jweijde
It's not ordered by a label but by a record company

maybe, not sure that's always the case : could depend if the artists have a contract with the label or the record company?? (and in the case of smaller labels, where there is only a single co.).

jweijde
This record obviously wasn't meant for public distribution. Test pressings never are

Absolutely, hence reluctance to use Pressing Plant as a label (still appearing as Pressed By in LCCN)

Seems to me that we are discussing here the (missing?) guideline on Test Pressings, with:
group 1: a Test Pressing is the mirror of the (to-be commercial issue), deserving label = same than the to-be commercial issue
group 2: a Test Pressing is not a commercial object, hence might be linked to Record Company, or Pressing Plant, or even label, provided that their logo is somewhere

Other tricky points relatively to test pressings:
- what if the test is KO (with finally not commercial release)
- some test press. show up on the market with the (commercial release) sleeve ... that is generally post manufactured, or generally within-record shop alteration. Hence using the sleeve for labels, cat #, ... is more easy but as "artificial" as without the sleeve

(btw an interesting discussion)

The point is the manufacturer cannot be the label, that's not his "job"; if they are commercially released or not, is not the issue here... Obviously test pressings are not for sale, except for a few special editions as borderes noted, RSD, indie store releases, etc... Promo releases are not commercially released (at least not "officially" - [Not For Sale] ¿You know?) and obviously came from labels... For example white label promo copies, with company label or not, ¿What should be the label? ...Manufacturer is unknown... ¿Not On Label? No, ¿What do you do? Take catalog number from the matrix. Many labels & companies can be identified by the matrix.

Example:

> Primal Scream - Loaded E.P.. Please check. Label and catalog number can be enterely identified by the matrix.

> Ozzy Osbourne - Blizzard Of Ozz.

RgrRecords
Ozzy Osbourne - Blizzard Of Ozz

Certainly the label is correct here, it's the brand on the release, even if not a 'label'. It is a brand.

Also Mastered At Ozzy Osbourne - Blizzard Of Ozz identified by the matrix... I forgot...

jweijde
It's comparable to Abbey Road Studios or Coca Cola, whose logos are also considered labels if they are present on a release.

I do not believe it's comparable. Coca Cola is an entity that could commission RTI to make that product.
RTI does not deal in licensing, A&R or any other aspects of releasing the end product beyond creating discs.

RTI is not the entity that wills those products into being.

If RTI did release in-house discs or a demonstration release, RTI could be considered a label for those.

..........

FromLondon
On a side note, is it acceptable to use the released label for a test pressing without label indications? eg The B-52's - Give Me Back My Man ?

I think it can be extrapolated from the runouts most of the time, but sometimes not.

I'd say it's okay if there's a clean link (ie runouts match)

Diognes_The_Fox
RTI does not deal in licensing, A&R or any other aspects of releasing the end product beyond creating discs.

RTI is not the entity that wills those products into being.

Does that matter when a label is just a logo and nothing else ? This product - a test pressing - is clearly branded as being an RTI product.

jweijde
This product - a test pressing - is clearly branded as being an RTI product.

Not really, it was made by RTI obo the label.

They receive the correct credit, either Made By, Manufactured By, or Pressed By.

Why do you want to give them an incorrect role? They are not a label.

avalon67
Not really, it was made by RTI obo the label.

There's no denying it's an RTI product. It's made by them and their logo is on it.

avalon67
Why do you want to give them an incorrect role? They are not a label.

This is a mixup of definitions. Outside world definition of "label" vs. Discogs definition of "label". According to Discogs' definition, RTI can definitely be a label because RTI is clearly branded on this item. Yes, the company behind RTI is not a record company but can be seen as such since the product is clearly branded as theirs

jweijde
Yes, the company behind RTI is not a record company but can be seen as such since the product is clearly branded as theirs.

No, the logo is of the manufacturer, and can be treated as such. It may have an l before it, but we don't treat every company mentioned on label artwork as a label, so just because their logo is there, why spread incorrect information?

Using your "logic" of logo = label then MS or any Rights Society that uses a logo should be listed as 'Label'?

jweijde
According to Discogs' definition, RTI can definitely be a label because RTI is clearly branded on this item.

Frank Sinatra - A Tribute To Frank Sinatra

What releases do we have GEMA, or SACM as label? Or Compact Disc Digital Audio?

avalon67
This is what happens when you apply that blanket way of looking at things
Frank Sinatra - A Tribute To Frank Sinatra

Clearly there is a Master Tone logo. I would say Master tone.

jweijde
This product - a test pressing - is clearly branded as being an RTI product.

I agree. They made it and put their brand on it. I don't see how RTI is different than Tape One.

avalon67
It may have an l before it, but we don't treat every company mentioned on label artwork as a label, so just because their logo is there, why spread incorrect information?

It's not just because their logo is there. It's also because it's clearly their product. The logo is there because it's their product.

avalon67
Using your "logic" of logo = label then MS or any Rights Society that uses a logo should be listed as 'Label'?

Only if the item is a product (co-)issued by the rights society, for example a promotional CD with tracks from composers they represent. I don't know if these actually exist though.

avalon67
This is what happens when you apply that blanket way of looking at things
Frank Sinatra - A Tribute To Frank Sinatra

It doesn't look like the submitter applied that "blanket logic" when entering MS Ltd. as label. It's simply an error, even more so because it seems that MS Ltd. is not even on the release.

FromLondon
Clearly there is a Master Tone logo. I would say Master tone.

I was using it as an example of this kind of thinking. Logo=label.

FromLondon
They made it and put their brand on it. I don't see how RTI is different than Master Room or Trident studios on Hawkwind - Hurry On Sundown / Kiss Of The Velvet Whip, or Tape One.

That's an acetate, not necessarily of the finished product, as are a lot of acetates.
The ones I have are test cuts, again not versions of the finished product. Meaning, before anyone twists my words, they were subsequently remastered before the finished mix being cut, so they weren't the product released by the record company.

btw, I quickly looked at the tTape One profile, they are not listed as 'Label', but as Mastered At etc.

jweijde
it seems that MS Ltd. is not even on the release.

The logo is on the back cover, so it must be a label.

avalon67
t seems that MS Ltd. is not even on the release.

The logo is on the back cover, so it must be a label.

He means it says MS, not MS Ltd.

avalon67
Logo=label.

Only if the logo is a label brand or the item is a product of the branded entity. The latter is the case here.
It's not simply because the logo is there. Otherwise CDDA logos could be entered as label too, which would obviously be incorrect.
MS isn't a label brand and the Frank Sinatra release isn't a product of MS. So it's not a label.
RTI is not a label brand, but the test pressing clearly is a product of RTI as evidenced by the branding on the item. So RTI can be entered as label.
Coca Cola isn't a label brand either, but there are many promotional CDs that are products of Coca Cola because they carry the Coca Cola brand. For those CDs, Coca Cola can be seen as the label.

(label brand in this context is a brand owned by a record company)

I agree with pretty much everything avalon67 has said in this thread.
Not every logo is a label, not even on Discogs.
If the record had plain white labels like many test pressings do then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Sometimes a test press gets wider distribution and then it's clear what is the label, see for example Sirian Rue. RTI hasn't the role of record label on their test pressings. The record label is the same as on the finished product.

Most s who have submitted RTI test presses have understood this. A search for RTI and TP gives 187 results, https://discogs.programascracks.com/search/?type=release&title=&artist=&label=+Record+Technology+Incorporated&track=&catno=&barcode=&anv=&format=Test+Pressing&credit=&genre=&style=&country=&year=&submitter=&contributor=&advanced=1
Out of those only 15 have RTI has label, the rest is using the label of the finished product except a few who has "Not On Label".

Bong
Most s who have submitted RTI test presses have understood this.

That's just an assumption on your part. Many people also enter things because they see how it's been entered on other items. Also, what people have been entering it as in the past doesn't determine what actually should be entered. What if people have been entering things incorrectly for a long time (what we've had with legacy labels for example)

Bong
Not every logo is a label, not even on Discogs.

Again, that's not what I'm saying or implying. For a logo to be a label of an item, the item should be a product of the branded entity. That's the case here.

avalon67
This is what happens when you apply that blanket way of looking at things
Frank Sinatra - A Tribute To Frank Sinatra

They marketed it, they're the ©o℗yright holders. It's their product.

Diognes_The_Fox
I do not believe it's comparable. Coca Cola is an entity that could commission RTI to make that product.
RTI does not deal in licensing, A&R or any other aspects of releasing the end product beyond creating discs.

RTI is not the entity that wills those products into being.

If RTI did release in-house discs or a demonstration release, RTI could be considered a label for those.

This

Opdiner
I'm wary of the blanket logo=label as others may be aware

+ this

Bong
Not every logo is a label, not even on Discogs.
If the record had plain white labels like many test pressings do then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

+ this

jweijde
There's no denying it's an RTI product. It's made by them and their logo is on it.

Undeniably so, they certainly manufactured it. But what if there was no logo at all, and only text and/or a URL?

jweijde
Only if the logo is a label brand or the item is a product of the branded entity.

The guideline which mentions this?
Or this:

jweijde
Only if the item is a product (co-)issued by the rights society,

Or are you stating as fact your opinion?
So, in your opinion, we should use their logo, but not another companies, like MS Ltd?

How about other Rights Societies that have logo's? Why not use them as a label? Because they're not labels? Well neither is RTI. And please don't repeat it is a label, it's as much a label as the examples I've given.

I think you're confusing Discogs calling every 'company' a label, with an l prefix.

It's the product of a manufacturer, made for a label.

Se-BusT-eL?

This was before there were company credits apparently, before my time.

_jules

rassel
I'd wait until the new non-human credits are available, then we should be able to credit manufacturing companies.

yep, this, or:

4.1.2. Normally, listing the main label (brand or logo) on the release is sufficient for cataloguing purposes. For major label releases, listing the record company branch as well as the label may be necessary to describe the unique release - the record company branch is entered as another 'label' for the moment. Do not add manufacturers, distributors etc unless they were acting as a record company on the release, and this information is important for describing the unique release. In all other cases, this information can be entered into the release notes.

..?

just bringing food for thought here ...

I'm completely agree wtih everything you've said avalon67.

avalon67
it was made by RTI obo the label.
They receive the correct credit, either Made By, Manufactured By, or Pressed By.
Why do you want to give them an incorrect role? They are not a label.

avalon67
No, the logo is of the manufacturer, and can be treated as such. It may have an l before it, but we don't treat every company mentioned on label artwork as a label, so just because their logo is there, why spread incorrect information?

That's it!

Bong
Not every logo is a label, not even on Discogs.
If the record had plain white labels like many test pressings do then we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Yes! Completely agree with you Bong

RSG §4.1.2 says: Normally, listing the main label (usually the largest brand or logo on the release) is sufficient for cataloguing purposes.

For me TPs and white labels are a completely different beast than "normal" subs. They are not the "usual" kind. And "Normally" doesn't mean "always" but implicates that there are exceptions…
The normal branding = label rule shouldn't be applied on TPs. Because obviously the manufacturer – even if he left a "logo" on his standard center label – isn't factually the "label" of the release.

They have a different rule already with deriving cat # from matrix RSG §4.7.10 (which in this special case also s the used label AFAICS),
Why can't we add something in Diognes_The_Fox? Looking at the majority of TPs of RTI i.e. shows they already have been entered in a different way … and I have no doubts that's similar with other manufacturers. So the common practice seems already to be the standard … but of course I'm no specialist for TPs – should be looked at.
As comfortable as the bureaucratic approach may be and as much many s might wish for rules which fit to all … It's here like in life. There are and will always be exceptions from the rule. In our case TPs and white labels.

Everything must be in his right place.

Example: Erika Records, Inc..

> Erika Records is a label.
> Erika Records, Inc. is a pressing plant. Test pressings on Erika are not necessarily released by the company, but were pressed there.

Example Faith No More - Sol Invictus test pressing.
Example for a commercial release Sub Pop

typoman2
TPs and white labels are a completely different beast than "normal" subs. They are not the "usual" kind. And "Normally" doesn't mean "always" but implicates that there are exceptions…
The normal branding = label rule shouldn't be applied on TPs. Because obviously the manufacturer – even if he left a "logo" on his standard center label – isn't factually the "label" of the release.

That's it!

Another example, check this: Against Me! - Cavalier Eternal / You Look Like I Need A Drink
There's no "logo" here... unknown manufacturer... ¿What should be the label? ¿Not On Label?
No. It can be identified by the matrix; label & catalog number, Against Me! - Cavalier Eternel / You Look Like I Need A Drink with the same identifiers. Simply that's it!

PS: "logo = label" comparison is a bit strange, at least not too much sense... ¿Don't you think?

RgrRecords
PS: "logo = label" comparison is a bit strange, at least not too much sense...

Often many logos are displayed on the releases but it doesn't mean they were labels; some of them should be entered as another LCCN's, like Record Company, Licenced To, Licenced From, Phonographic Copyright (p), Copyright (c), Manufactured By, Pressed By... etc...These are not necessarily "labels" even his "logos" are displayed on the release.
I try to say a "logo" should not determinate if it's a label or not, could be another LCCN. Again, everything in its right place.

Sorry for being late. Where I can define the label from the matrix, I see no reason not to add the label. IINM, this was OK'd by nik many, many years ago.

Bong
Not every logo is a label, not even on Discogs.

Absolutely correct.

avalon67
the logo is of the manufacturer, and can be treated as such

I agree. Where a clear role can be derived, we should stick to that very role but not compulsory construe a label role.

sebfact
I agree. Where a clear role can be derived, we should stick to that very role but not compulsory construe a label role.

I won't say this is getting crazy, but it's getting complicated. As I pointed out earlier, here's a good example that should help set a precedent:
https://discogs.programascracks.com/release/8527783-Play-It-Funky-Do-What-You-Feel/history#latest
I used an example of the company I was a partner in, who had the label Robert Jay - Alcohol.
I think Cergon* - Play It Funky / Do What You Feel still in need of an edit I can't act upon at this point as unlike the Robert Jay without a company name, the Cergon TP has a pressing company name.

Using this as an example, I would those who say that TPs are to be labelled as the eventual issuing label, Pressing companies assigned that role, except in instances where no eventual issuing label ever surfaced.

Makes sense to me. As usual, I'd love a decision and for that decision to be added to guidelines in a clear way.

jweijde
Only if the logo is a label brand or the item is a product of the branded entity.

avalon67
The guideline which mentions this?

This is not explicitly mentioned in the guidelines but is based on how we handle brands like Coca-Cola, Volkswagen, McDonald's, Kellogg's, Amway or any other non-music industry brand on this site.
Afterall, the guideline indicates "Label - Brand or imprint used by the record company to identify their releases". Following the spirit of this guideline, one can say a label is a brand used by a company to identify their product. Thus it can be applied here.
Why would we otherwise enter all these non-music industry brands as labels ?

avalon67
How about other Rights Societies that have logo's? Why not use them as a label? Because they're not labels? Well neither is RTI. And please don't repeat it is a label, it's as much a label as the examples I've given.

When they present themselves as a label - meaning they present the product as being theirs - they can be entered as labels. I'm not going to speculate on other rights societies when there are no clear examples.

Let me be clear once again: I'm not advocating a so called "blanket logo=label" policy. Not every logo represents a label, otherwise CDDA logos for example could also be entered as labels. But when a logo is presented in a way that it can be seen as a label, it can be entered as such.

mcr1
it's getting complicated

Valid arguments are being presented.
As usual, I ask that management make a call here and make guidelines clear.

The presence of a logo does not necessarily mean it's the Label, can be a company. The logo referred here, Record Technology Incorporated, is the manufacturer, not a label. Should be entered as LCCN (Manufactured By or Pressed By).

Again, on Record Technology Incorporated web page here: http://www.recordtech.com/ company declare itself as a manufacturer, not a record label. It's not me who's saying it, is said by the company. Check company web page.
Cannot be tagged on Discogs that way, it wouldn't reflect the reality. Discogs, as a serious database, must reflect the reality around music industry. A company and a "logo" cannot be entered as a label if it isn't.

Example previously exposed on this threat: White Labels.
There's no information on these releases, no logos, no company sleeve (often company sleeves show another LCCN for example Record Company, and not the label), plain white label, ¿What's the label here?, ¿Not on label? No. it can be identified by the matrix codes:
>Primal Scream - Loaded E.P.. Please check. Label, catalog number, Companies & Credits, are all identified by the matrix. That's it.

RgrRecords
Cannot be tagged on Discogs that way, it wouldn't reflect the reality. Discogs, as a serious database, must reflect the reality around music industry. A company and a "logo" cannot be entered as a label if it isn't.

That's a load of horsecrap. And does not reflect reality on discogs. Discog's has it's own guidelines, established practices etc and they do not always match the reality outside discogs.
You can keep arguing based on your non understanding of how discogs works, but it's still based on the wrong input and doesn't mean anything. You cannot win an argument if you base it on the wrong things.

RgrRecords
(often company sleeves show another LCCN for example Record Company, and not the label)

I'll show you an example also for this:

Dicesa which is a record comany and manufacturer from Central America.

velove
That's a load of horsecrap. And does not reflect reality on discogs. Discog's has it's own guidelines, established practices etc and they do not always match the reality outside discogs.
You can keep arguing based on your non understanding of how discogs works, but it's still based on the wrong input and doesn't mean anything. You cannot win an argument if you base it on the wrong things.

With all due respect for everyone here, I'm not trying to win anything, I have presented arguments and examples to these arguments (valids or not) and I've done based on contributions and examples from here, from Discogs, not from external inputs. I haven't mentioned Coca-Cola, Volkswagen, McDonald's, Kellogg's... (Sorry, this is not a personal issue).

I try to say two arguments must be defended in a friendly way, that's a community, but please, don't talk about "non understanding of how discogs works" or "if you base it on the wrong things" just because you do not share my position.

RgrRecords
but please, don't talk about "non understanding of how discogs works" or "if you base it on the wrong things" just because you do not share my position.

it's not because I don't share your position but I get the impression that your reasoning is faulty because you base it on "facts" that are not valid on discogs. I get the impression that while your reasoning is probably sound it doesn't apply to the situation here.

Ok, that's your position; I'm not agree, but everyone has his own arguments/positions.

RgrRecords
Ok, that's your position; I'm not agree, but everyone has his own arguments/positions.

you don't seem to understand what I am trying to say. Possibly my fault. I'm out.

mcr1
As usual, I ask that management make a call here and make guidelines clear.

There seems to be a consensus ed by management that the label should be the issuing label, not the manufacturer. It's also quite clear according to the guidelines that the removal of the catalogue number was incorrect, "

jweijde
Because I don't believe it's the catalog number of this particular record

It's quite clearly the catalogue number as it's printed on the label and sleeve of the commercial release.

The edits made are basically preference, there was nothing wrong with the state of the label and catalogue number before and as it stood was ed by the guidelines, the edits have been made on opinion and vague references to the guidelines, not strict adherence to anything which states "must"

avalon67
label should be the issuing label

+1

avalon67
There seems to be a consensus ed by management that the label should be the issuing label, not the manufacturer. It's also quite clear according to the guidelines that the removal of the catalogue number was incorrect, "
It's quite clearly the catalogue number as it's printed on the label and sleeve of the commercial release.

The edits made are basically preference, there was nothing wrong with the state of the label and catalogue number before and as it stood was ed by the guidelines, the edits have been made on opinion and vague references to the guidelines, not strict adherence to anything which states "must"

Completely agree with you! +1!

avalon67
the edits have been made on opinion and vague references to the guidelines, not strict adherence to anything which states "must"

Nowhere in the guidelines does it say the label entered has to be the "issuing label" - as you call it - either.

avalon67
There seems to be a consensus ed by management that the label should be the issuing label, not the manufacturer

A label on Discogs is just a brand or imprint: "Label - Brand or imprint used by the record company to identify their releases." A record company issues records and markets them using certain brands. Given this, there's isn't really such a thing as an "issuing label". Atleast on Discogs.

avalon67
It's quite clearly the catalogue number as it's printed on the label and sleeve of the commercial release.

Point is that it is not presented as a catalog number on the test pressing. The test pressing itself doesn't seem to have a catalog number, which makes sense because it's not intended for public distribution. There's only a matrix present.

avalon67
The edits made are basically preference, there was nothing wrong with the state of the label and catalogue number before and as it stood was ed by the guidelines, the edits have been made on opinion and vague references to the guidelines, not strict adherence to anything which states "must"

I changed the label with Discogs' definition of the term "Label" and with our current practice of handling non-music industry brands in mind. Note that RTI isn't even a non-music industry brand. It is also in line with one of our main guidelines that states we enter data as closely to the release as possible. My personal preference has nothing to do with all this.

jweijde
enter data as closely to the release as possible

would you agree that, at least, this does not apply to the Artists, even with an object = Test pressing with white labels and in generic sleeve?

jweijde
Point is that it is not presented as a catalog number on the test pressing.

So you keep quoting guidelines and the way "we" do things on Discogs, some without any proof, yet choose to ignore RSG §4.7.10 Catalog numbers can be derived from the matrix numbers in these cases provided there is good evidence for it being correct - for example, the extracted catalog number matches the catalog number format on the label's other releases. and then deny that removing the catalogue number because You don't think it is is not a preference edit?

And the fact that the commercial release uses that very same number isn't clear proof? You are ignoring the guidelines to suit yourself.

jweijde
current practice of handling non-music industry brands in mind.

Thread or guideline? Again you're treating as fact your opinion.

jweijde
When they present themselves as a label - meaning they present the product as being theirs - they can be entered as labels

Uhh, opinion again.

I'll leave you to it. I can't be bothered to keep arguing, you're in the wrong here, no matter that you're a long time . If this was a newbie had made these edits there'd be an outcry.

The thread has a clear consensus and management approval.

_jules suggested this amendment a few years ago.

4.1.2. Normally, listing the main label (brand or logo) on the release is sufficient for cataloguing purposes. For major label releases, listing the record company branch as well as the label may be necessary to describe the unique release - the record company branch is entered as another 'label' for the moment. Do not add manufacturers, distributors etc unless they were acting as a record company on the release, and this information is important for describing the unique release. In all other cases, this information can be entered into the relevant fields in lccn.

I've adjusted his proposal slightly as we now have company fields which cover the role needed and in conjunction with RSG §4.7.10 and RSG §4.1.1. (This field is used for the label, series, record company, and other companies involved in the release. would solve this little 'problem'.

Does typoman2 above.

recently I had this existencial problem and Matrix help me with two cases:

1- Arlindo De Carvalho - Dia De Festa / Tão Longe Daqui

2-Duarte Mendes - April Dawn
2.a- Duarte Mendes - Chant D' Avril

Last two releases I let Not On Label, but 99,99% sure are Orfeu. But didn't found any label evidence. First case no. If this cases help or not...

IMO wrong option if people try to write or modify test pressing labels to get "authenticity"...

With second case I spend days trying to identify recordings with software, listening, etc...in few minutes just watching Matrix and searching here at Discogs was easy discover a "true" behind blank label, that's it....simple

borderes
would you agree that, at least, this does not apply to the Artists, even with an object = Test pressing with white labels and in generic sleeve?

Based on RSG §1.7.4 and several threads about mispresses, the track listing should contain the tracks that are actually on the release. That doesn't conflict with entering data as closely to the release as possible.

avalon67
So you keep quoting guidelines and the way "we" do things on Discogs, some without any proof, yet choose to ignore RSG §4.7.10

When you say the label "must be the issuing label", then it's reasonable to apply that guideline.
When you say the label should be RTI since that's how the pressing is branded, then this remains to be seen.
The guideline talks about "other releases on the label" and that's what we're contesting here: what should be entered as label for this test pressing ?

jweijde
current practice of handling non-music industry brands in mind.

avalon67
Thread or guideline? Again you're treating as fact your opinion.

Look at releases on the Sony Music Studios pages, or any of the other brands I mentioned earlier. There are also some threads about this, but I don't have the links at hand at the moment.
This is also backed up by post.

jweijde
When they present themselves as a label - meaning they present the product as being theirs - they can be entered as labels

avalon67
Uhh, opinion again.

Again, this is based on RSG §4.6.2 and the common way of handling non-music industry brands.
In your opinion the label entered should be the "issuing label". Where's that in the guidelines ?

avalon67
julesparis suggested this amendment a few years ago.

It has already changed since then:
RSG §4.1.2: Normally, listing the main label (usually the largest brand or logo on the release) is sufficient for cataloguing purposes. You can optionally list other companies mentioned on the release. Sometimes, the only way to describe a Unique Release is to mention one or more of these companies, in this case, it becomes mandatory to add it. "

What is the largest brand or logo on this test pressing ?

jweijde
Look at releases on the Coca-Cola, Pepsi or Sony Music Studios pages, or any of the other brands I mentioned earlier. There are also some threads about this, but I don't have the links at hand at the moment.

Look at >95% of the TPO's in the db. There is a thread about this I posted a link

jweijde
jweijde
When they present themselves as a label - meaning they present the product as being theirs - they can be entered as labels

avalon67
Uhh, opinion again.

Again, this is based on RSG §4.6.2 and the common way of handling non-music industry brands.

RSG §4.6.2 Label - Brand or imprint used by the record company to identify their releases.

RTI are not a Record Company.

jweijde
Where's that in the guidelines ?

RSG §4.1.1This field is used for the label, series, record company, and other companies involved in the release.

You would concede that the label were involved in the release? Or do you have a handy get out clause for that too?

jweijde
What is the largest brand or logo on this test pressing ?

As above, normally does not mean always.

You still haven't answered my question as to why your opinion that the matrix number, which matches the commercial release, should be removed is valid?

Blinkered, to say the least.

avalon67
Look at >95% of the TPO's in the db. There is a thread about this I posted a link

Do all these have a large logo of the pressing plant on them ? If so, the label for those might need to be reconsidered aswell. But don't worry, I won't touch them.

avalon67
RSG §4.6.2 Label - Brand or imprint used by the record company to identify their releases.

RTI are not a Record Company.

Coca-Cola, Sony Music Studios and Amway aren't record companies either. There must be many more like these in the database. I have already explained that entering these as labels anyway follows the spirit of the guideline.

avalon67
RSG §4.1.1This field is used for the label, series, record company, and other companies involved in the release.

That guideline explains what can be entered in the "Label, Company, Catalog Number, Etc" section. Nothing in that guideline suggests the label tag is exclusively for the "issuing label".

avalon67
You would concede that the label were involved in the release?

RTI is definitely involved in this release and it's logo is presented as a label (as per Discogs definition). This shouldn't be a surprise anymore.

avalon67
You still haven't answered my question as to why your opinion that the matrix number, which matches the commercial release, should be removed is valid?

Because it's not the catalog number of the test pressing and not presented as such on the test pressing.

jweijde
Because it's not the catalog number of the test pressing and not presented as such on the test pressing.

So what you're saying is that you rely on some guidelines to justify your edits, but ignore others when you see fit?
Catalog numbers can be derived from the matrix numbers in these cases provided there is good evidence for it being correct - for example, the extracted catalog number matches the catalog number format on the label's other releases.
The catalogue number was derived from the matrix numbers, but you didn't think it was a catalogue number
That's not a preference edit?

jweijde
avalon67
RSG §4.6.2 Label - Brand or imprint used by the record company to identify their releases.

jweijde
RTI is definitely involved in this release and it's logo is presented as a label (as per Discogs definition).

Again, you are ignoring the guidelines which you keep quoting, it's not the brand used by the Record Company.

If we look at it like this
RSG §4.6.2
Label - Brand or imprint used by the record company to identify their releases. The label on a release can usually be identified by having a prominent logo.
RSG §4.7.10
Catalog numbers can be derived from the matrix numbers in these cases provided there is good evidence for it being correct - for example, the extracted catalog number matches the catalog number format on the label's other releases.

The above gives the OS every right under the guidelines to enter the sub as he did.
Your edits, I know I've said this before, were nothing but your preference in interpreting the guidelines.

btw when you were editing it you left several errors in the baoi.

I know it's hard for you to back down, but your edits were all preference edits, as there was nothing wrong with the data in that sub as it stood.

The consensus of this thread is that your POV is incorrect too.

I'm enterely agree with it ^^^

Likewise, my vote is firmly against using the pressing plant as label on test pressings despite their logo being present.

snickersnots
Likewise, my vote is firmly against using the pressing plant as label on test pressings despite their logo being present.

And another agreement from me.

Quick help needed here: Cergon* - Play It Funky / Do What You Feel, on an issue I raised 1 month ago on this very subject. Because of advice being ignored and because of an inaccurate edit I've held off in correcting this myself until now.
If another could just confirm that the label is CSC Records I can cite forum approval and edit and not get entangled in a dispute. Checking this should take 30 seconds!

RgrRecords
Yes mcr1, in this case label should be United Record Pressing (United Record Pressing, Inc. is not correct) on LCCN.

Thanks RgrRecords, I saw your comment way back in the thread, then it got messy. Glad it's all sorted, I'll make the edit, using URC on LCCN, cheers.

ok so i am not that well versed with test pressings, acetates and dubplates so i would like some clarification:

i have the following:
http://imgur.com/a/rdgy0

when i submit it, i should enter Not On Label and add Manufactured By(?) Sniper Dub-Plate
yes?

the final retail release, if ever released, is unknown. there are no runouts to provide a clue as to what label it would have been released on. reference to this artist and one of the tracks appears on a digital album release on amazon, presumably there was a physical (CD?) issued in the late 90s, but no clue about a record, and no idea if this single was to be issued by the same label as that album.

PabloPlato
one of the tracks appears on a digital album release on amazon,

Does that have any clues? Artist name (I'm guessing not as you were asking last week), label, country of origin, anything...?

artist name, country - yes.
label - on the album, but as mentioned, it's not a guarantee that this single was commissioned by that label.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Busted/dp/B001G2RPPO

As much as I sympathise and agree with the broad drift of avalon67's argument (no, a logo is very much not always a label) and am very pleased that he is making it (overdue), unfortunately management have long said that a large, dominant logo like the one on this Ozzy release, is a label, and the guidelines lean in that direction - so right now, as I said above, I think this is correct as a label.

If mgmt had been good to their earlier indications that the community were able to direct the database then perhaps this could (and should) be changed, but right I think we are stuck with this as a label.

Clearly the cat # should be entered.

avalon67
So what you're saying is that you rely on some guidelines to justify your edits, but ignore others when you see fit?

Look, I do see how that guideline can be used to derive the catalog number from a matrix. I also understand that it can be applied to this test pressing. I just don't think this test pressing has a catalog number since it presents none. It's not made for public distribution and a product of RTI. Considering RTI can be a label here, there is no matching catalog number format either. Also that the guidelines do not require entering a catalog number (you can enter none) nor do they require taking a catalog number from the matrix, if present.
But if you insist, I'm willing to accept defeat on this one. It's a minor issue to me.

avalon67
Label - Brand or imprint used by the record company to identify their releases. The label on a release can usually be identified by having a prominent logo.

This just gives you an idea what to look for when you want to enter the label of an item. It doesn't mean you can ignore a very large logo in favour of some logos on another version of the release - one you are not submitting.
I think I laid out clearly by now why I entered the label as I did and backed this up by the guidelines and current practices. The only responses I get where "It's a manufacturer" or that I missed the words "normally" or "usually". The fact that RTI is a manufacturer doesn't mean it can't be entered as label for a product they've made, neither do the words "normally" or "usually" - which are ambiguous anyway. I also keep hearing "not all logos are labels". This I agree with but I don't think it should be used as an excuse to not enter something as label when there's a large prominent logo present that is presented as a label (it's their product). My edits don't have anything to do with the original submitter's competence either.

Perhaps some kind of official statement by Discogs' staff would be needed on this issue.
Seems to be a (major) consensus on this thread about the manufacturer cannot be the label and catalog number should be taken from the BaOI.
Arguments have been previously exposed; not need to be repeated anymore, since all comments revolve around the same arguments from both sides.

I suspect, given past statements by management, you may not like the answer on the label.

Opdiner
I suspect, given past statements by management, you may not like the answer on the label.

Seems there's no consensus among s about what was the official statement by management... at least based on this thread... perhaps a clarification would be needed...

There are a great many threads with regard to non-record company and traditional label branding, and AFAICR the management ruling has always been much the same: big logo = label.

OK, let's hope that either Diognes_The_Fox will comment agin.

DTF has already said

Diognes_The_Fox
I do not believe it's comparable. Coca Cola is an entity that could commission RTI to make that product.
RTI does not deal in licensing, A&R or any other aspects of releasing the end product beyond creating discs.
If RTI did release in-house discs or a demonstration release, RTI could be considered a label for those.

Which I take as the OK to use Epic, Legacy & Sony Music Entertainment as labels and list RTI in it's correct place as Manufacturer.

That's AS IT STANDS management stance.

As to s in favour, if indeed we are able to direct on issues like this
avalon67

9 s in total, plus of course Diognes_The_Fox

There is also this from sebfact which seems pretty damn relevant

sebfact
IINM, this was OK'd by Nik many, many years ago.

On the other side of the fence we have
jweijde

With qualified from

velove
Maybe sometimes the obvious is not the correct thing to do but it's not so clear cut.

And

FromLondon
I can see both sides of the debate. You're either in the 'use logo per label', or it's a test pressing so 'use label it was released on'. Maybe in these examples use both??

So, neither really giving 100% to jweijde's argument.

And I really don't know where Opdiner stands.

IMO he's saying that my POV is the right one, but he thinks history will show that management will deny it.

Anyone that I've misrepresented please shout.

So, 9 s clearly in favour, plus management

1 s firmly against, 2 sort of wavering, and 1 in agreement but thinks it'll get turned down

Pretty clear cut to me.

So any objections to my POV?

current guidelines allow adding RTI as label. as jweijde have said. Which means that it cannot be removed again.

velove
current guidelines allow adding RTI as label. as Opdiner and jweijde have said. Which means that it cannot be removed again.

That's pretty much what I'm saying, regardless of Brent's opinion above, which does seem to run exactly counter to the guidelines. None of the parameters he lists are label qualifications here, however a large logo quite clearly can be.

Instead, he seems to be defining a record company, no? Who released this and how they released it is currently neither here nor there, the branding however is.

Opdiner
There are a great many threads with regard to non-record company and traditional label branding, and AFAICR the management ruling has always been much the same: big logo = label.

"Logo = Label" is a wrong approach if "big logo" represents a manufacturer; which is a company and not a label. Should be entered as LCCN ("Pressed By", "Manufactured By"...). That's the point here.

I have no objection about avalon67 said. Enterely agree with him.

Opdiner
which does seem to run exactly counter to the guidelines

Yet a management statement can overrule the guidelines and a clear consensus as we have here, we've been told, can lead to a change.
That's what I feel should be the point.
A manufacturer is not a label and we shouldn't treat them as such.
Otherwise, why not list any Rights Society that has a logo on the label, as a label?
a/ They're not a label? Neither is RTI
b/ They have their own field? So does RTI
c/ It's been decided not to? Let's make that decision wrt manufacturers now.

OK, a couple more pints. They've been decried but they're guidelines, so again, why ignore them??
RSG §4.6.2 The following are definitions for all the tags that can be selected in the label and company section.
Label - Brand or imprint used by the record company to identify their releases. The label on a release can usually be identified by having a prominent logo.

This ties in with this quote from DTF

Diognes_The_Fox
I do not believe it's comparable. Coca Cola is an entity that could commission RTI to make that product.
RTI does not deal in licensing, A&R or any other aspects of releasing the end product beyond creating discs.

RTI is not the entity that wills those products into being.

RTI are not a label that is being used by a Record company. Coca Cola is. That argument just doesn't stand up. It's branded Coca Cola because they're involved with promotion, possibly helping with the compiling,etc etc. RTI is a company employed by the label/record company to manufacture for them. Apples and tennis balls.

Now maybe something gets lost in translation, but 'usually' does not mean always, despite the objections to my pointing that out. Give me some examples of where 'usually' does not apply, if this isn't one of them?

FromLondon
They made it and put their brand on it.

I'm in the against camp. Or use both. I'm not for using made by.

avalon67
A manufacturer is not a label and we shouldn't treat them as such.

Yes, 100%.
If we see a ROLE we use it.
If we see a logo we determine the role.

It's really as simple as that. Otherwise we end end up with crazy situation where in say this Stevie Wonder Master Stevie Wonder - Hotter Than July had have had the pressing companies logo on the white label by some of the above arguments it shouldn't be on Tamla).

avalon67
a couple more pints

I feel like having a couple more pints myself!

avalon67
So any objections to my POV?

Clear, nothing to add

FromLondon
They made it and put their brand on it.

A brand does not make a label. Otherwise most physical modern releases on discogs would be swamped with "label" credits and their cat. numbers. A brand/logo has to be assigned a role. One, or two, or maybe more may be a label. A brand/logo seen elsewhere on a release may be a Distributor or Record Company.

So it should be with a test pressing that bears the brand of the company instructed to complete a role by the eventual releasing label. Use the eventual releasing label as label, whoever pressed it has that role assigned.

"They made it" makes the role "Made By" or "Pressed By" in many instances.